Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69726)

I just saw the author of the book The Feminine Mistake on the Today Show this morning.
(Her response to the negative feedback she has received from her book: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/200...uffpost/044690)

Her book, which I have not read, apparently deals with the mistake women are making by leaving their jobs and becoming financially dependent on their spouse. She says mothers who do this put their children at risk because if divorce, death or illness of their spouse required them to go back to work, they statistically would not be able to find a job and make an income to support their children.

I think she definitely has a point, but she underestimates the difference a mother in the home makes on the emotional well being of a family.

I think LDS women of families who truly follow counsel for the church and have a year supply, stay out of debt, live within their means, etc. are probably going to be in good shape if something happens and the mother needs to go back to work. Even better shape are the women who have an education and manage to keep a foot in the work force while still staying at home.

Any other thoughts on this issue?

Originally Posted by SteelBlue (Post 69733)

I do not now know, nor have I ever known any man woman or child who had a year's supply of food. I have known a few who had a year's pay saved that was liquid. But they are very few.

Originally Posted by marsupial (Post 69726)

I just saw the author of the book The Feminine Mistake on the Today Show this morning...

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 69734)

You hold a traditional LDS belief. I'm not certain I share it any longer. In our ward, the successful families have educated women, who work and whose children are active and successful. So a woman who is unfamiliar with the workforce and finances is making a mistake for her and her family.

Originally Posted by jay santos (Post 69761)

I could not disagree more. My wife is a stay-at-home mom. She's educated but chose not to work. I believe strongly this is the best model for families--especially in today's world. And because this is a hot issue, I try not to judge, but my empirical observations on which families are active and successful are completely opposite.

Like Elder Oaks talk, the objective should be no (or much less frequent) divorce, not for the man and woman to go into the marriage more prepared for a potential break up. The interdependency that develops in a marriage for financial, emotional, sexual, health and other matters is a beautiful thing.

Originally Posted by SteelBlue (Post 69733)

I do not now know, nor have I ever known any man woman or child who had a year's supply of food. I have known a few who had a year's pay saved that was liquid. But they are very few.